1. In the order of the Plaintiff, the Defendant indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the 2,506§³ of C forest land in Chuncheon City.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 16, 2017, under the receipt of No. 44950 on October 16, 2017, with respect to C forest land 2,506 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant, among the instant land, has planted trees and brought about landscaping rocks on the land of 358 square meters in the part (A) connected with each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 in sequence among the land of this case (hereinafter “the part in possession of this case”), and occupied the said part of the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 7 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the main claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the trees and landscape trees planted in the possession part of the instant land, among the instant land, correspond to the said land owned by the Plaintiff and owned by the Plaintiff.

However, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 9, the defendant can recognize the fact that the above occupied part is Chuncheon City D, which is the land adjacent to the defendant's ownership, and is planting trees and bringing about landscaping stone on that ground. Thus, the defendant's primary claim on the premise that the above trees and landscaping stone are owned by the plaintiff is without merit.

B. As to the determination of the conjunctive claim, the Defendant, without any title to possession, has planted trees and brought about landscaping in the occupied part of the instant land from among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to collect the above trees and landscaping and deliver the occupied part to the Plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the occupied part of this case is not the land of this case owned by the plaintiff, but the land of this case owned by the defendant, and that the plaintiff's application for boundary correction as to the occupied part was merely an unilaterally corrected boundary without going through the cadastral resurvey process.

However, this paper examines all the descriptions of Nos. 1 to 14.